Talk:Redland City

I hope that my initial effort will not be the last and I would encourage others to refine what I have put down. Much of the information comes from the Council Library's excellent Local History collection and the many studies that have been done at both the State and Council level trying to cope with the influx of population. The small section on the Russell Island land scams could easily be treated as a page of its own. The scam has entered Australian folklore and the stigma continues to depress the price of land on the island. A great story if someone would like to work on it. --Leeshipley 20:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably because the bulk of the article is from Council sources, it omits criticism from environmental activist groups. The Raby Bay fiasco would also be worth mentioning, along with its relationship to Joh. Also missing is federal electoral information; the annual strawberry festival (and its decline) and perhaps some information on climate. --DLeonard

Scope of article

This article is about Redland city, not the city council. It should be moved, but care needs to be paid to avoiding double redirects, as the article has been moved recently. aliasd·U·T 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations Required

Information in the section titled Economy lacks citations. If sources for this information are not cited the information will have to be removed.Panthus (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Economy" Claims Misleading

So the "Economy" section has this paragraph:

During the year ending in June 2014, an estimated 41,506 jobs were located in Redland City, along with an estimated 74,089 employed residents, meaning 32,035 (or 47.1%) of Redland City’s employed residents who work travel outside of the area to do so.

I would dispute the claim that "47.1% of workers travel outside the area" - not only could they could they be self-employed, but it fails to account for the people who live in other areas (such as Brisbane or Logan) who commute to the Redlands. Please let me know if anyone has any objections before I delete this paragraph. Prawn Skewers (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A google search reveals this material is drawn from ABS data published on the Redland City Council website. Here's the citation for the first bit (noting it's from the archive, the council website has 2015 data available if you want to make the information more up-to-date). If you drill down in the employment data here, you will find stuff about people working/not-working locally etc. It's better to search for the citation and add it than to remove content. Kerry (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I see. So apparently Of the 35,474 people who work in Redland City, 27,180 or 76.6% also live in the area, according to the links you provided - very different to what the article suggests. Happy to change it to this statistic? Prawn Skewers (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would go with the "reliable source" for the numbers. But my reading of this is that while 76.6% of workers in Redlands are from Redlands, there are unsurprisingly 23.4% of workers coming from elsewhere to work in Redlands. Meanwhile, there are 44.7% or Redland-resident workers who are working outside of Redlands. I presume the reason these numbers don't add up to 100% is because some people have multiple jobs or their job might involve travelling about (e.g. a tradesman). While it's not the same as the 47.1% that the article was quoting, 44.7% is certainly in that same ballpark. Kerry (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous - and I love statistics. Better question: is this relevant for the article? I'd argue no. Prawn Skewers (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's probably not something I would add to an article, but different folks are interested in different things. Someone thought it interesting enough to put in the effort to add it in. So long as the source matches what's said in the citation (or can be made to match), I don't see a basis for deleting it. Kerry (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Redland Coast

It may be that the marketing campaign to promote the name Redland Coast will be successful and people will begin to call it by that name and hence it will be justified to say it is “known as” that name in the article’s lede, but just announcing the campaign does not make it so. WP:CRYSTAL.It is not unreasonable to add to the article that such a campaign has been agreed/initiated with citation, but it is not lede-worthy at this time. Kerry (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasebr: Redland City does not decide its own name; it is the state government that names local government areas. This is a marketing campaign to "brand" the city in a way they hope will attract tourists. It is a fact that there is a marketing campaign; if cited, mention of the marketing campaign can be included in the article. It is not a fact that the name has changed. Nor is it a fact that it is "known as" Redland Coast at this time; if the campaign is successful, then people may start using it as a common name and at that point we will have ample evidence of that to include it in the lede para. Wikipedia does not generally include speculative information about the future as per our WP:CRYSTAL policy. For these reasons I am again reverting these edits. Nobody is disputing that there is to be a marketing campaign, but equally nobody is able to predict outcome. Kerry (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added the marketing campaign with citation at the end of the History section. Kerry (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Demographics

Having added citations for the last 5 censuses, it turns out that the uncited data that was in the article for those years was incorrect. So it begs the question of the accuracy of all the early years of uncited data. Unless someone provides citations, I think we should remove it. Kerry (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)